From: Melinda McComb
Sent: Fri Feb 18 15:21:53 2011
To: ToxicsRuleMaking
Cc: melinda_mccomb@yahoo.com
Subject: Public Comment: Toxic Rule Making: Revised Water Quality Standards
Importance: Normal
Friday, Feb. 18, 2011
Dear Ms. Matzke;
Please enter my letter below into the public record for the Revised Water Quality Standards for Toxic Pollutants.
Overall I support the proposed changes, particularly the newer standard based upon a higher level of fish consumption. I do feel however that the DEQ is overlooking very obvious potential changes that would achieve some of the same ends within it's own process of issuing permits for NPDES permits and mixing zones, or zones of concentrated pollution, in state waters. In Newport, Oregon, the DEQ has issued an NPDES permit to Georgia-Pacific Toledo to discharge an average of 11 million gallons a day of minimally processed pulp mill effluent into a +/-42 acre area that is used routinely used for fishing and recreation. Currently the public has no notification as to where these mixing zones are located in rivers and state oceans, and so cannot avoid these polluted areas for the purpose of pursuing beneficial uses such as fishing and recreation. This is similar to allowing a hidden hazard, in that people fishing and recreating in or near these mixing zones have no notice they are within a zone of known pollution. Mixing zones are not good places to swim or fish, and create a conflict with protected beneficial uses. The DEQ needs to consider the need for posting or some manner of public notification on the locations of these mixing zones in state waters so that people aren't fishing and swimming near or in mixing zones. The area off Nye Beach is routinely used for fishing, particularly crabbing, as it is near shore, and also near a reef. So if the concern is reducing toxic pollutants in fish for human consumption, a good place to start would be posting locations of permitted zones of pollution (mixing zones). Better still, stop permitting mixing zones and require that water quality standards be met at the end of the pipe.
Another concern is the frequent use of terms such as "as is practicable" in almost every requirement and standard for a variance. This is obviously a big loophole and judgment call making the fairness and goals of the revised standards continually up for debate. Particularly as economic hardship is always the rationale for a variance to best practice standards. People throughout Oregon are subsidizing these variances through increased health care costs and lost productivity in addition to degradation of our collect natural resources and a loss to beneficial uses with a higher priority. As an example, both fishing and tourism are economically important to Newport, however the DEQ has chosen to favor the economic interests of Georgia-Pacific over the economic interests of the people of Newport. If all the legally nonconforming or grandfathered discharges are all given variances in perpetuity, then there is no net reduction of toxic pollutants in state waters. These older permits are among the worst air and water polluters in the state, and what needs to be addressed is a firm time-line for bringing these non-conforming permits into current air and water quality standards. Not only has the DEQ allowed these grandfathered discharges to continue, the DEQ actually approved requests from Georgia-Pacific to expand their use by permitting the importation of Marion County leachate for treatment and discharge, where only a pulp mill discharge had ever been permitted. And while Georgia-Pacific was pleading economic hardship with respect to upgrading it's discharge treatment, GP was collecting an additional $800,000 in 2004 alone for processing hazardous waste (per the bid on the Marion County website) in the form of imported leachate. It was using, and the DEQ allowed, its grandfathered status to take in new sources of effluent for profit. How these new water quality standards will impact water quality in Oregon will be nothing more than a negotiable point with the DEQ when every standard and grounds for a variance are based upon a nebulous practicality or a one sided economic analysis. If the DEQ wants to reduce toxic pollutants in state waters, then it should seriously reconsider issuing permits for discharging toxic pollutants into state waters (mixing zones).
I do not have any real hope that these revised standards will provide any meaningful reduction in toxic pollutants in state waters, and by extension into seafood consumed by humans. The TMDL process takes years before sufficient data is available even to identify toxic pollutants, let alone identifying sources and developing a management plan or altering permit requirements. I would question whether or not the DEQ has the funding, manpower, political will and other resources to carry through on these revised standards. Permits for many of these NPDES permits are currently running 5+ years beyond renewal dates due to inadequate staffing and funding. Where will the money come from for all these new TMDL's that will be required? Wouldn't it be fairer, and more straightforward, not to mention allot less work, to set a firm time-line when all non-conforming air and water quality permits in the state must fall into full current air and water quality compliance? All grandfathered permits should be required to meet current standards at some point in the future, and in no cases should they be allowed by the state to expand into new uses and processes while they are grandfathered. More importantly, toxic loads in water, air and human food will never be reduced as long as state agencies are issuing permits to discharge toxins into the water, air and soil. Eliminating the Oregon mixing zone standards and requiring water quality standards to be met at the end of the pipe is the best way toxic pollutants in state waters can be reduced. The end of the pipe (or end of the smokestack) standard is also fairer to everyone. No one is asked to give up something to increase profits for someone else. A human protein source (seafood) for the public should always have a higher priority than reducing costs for an individual business by permitting the dumping of polluted effluent into state waters. Mixing zones are nothing but public subsidies; and businesses should be required to clean up their messes, not transfer it to the public as a burden to the commons and communal food sources.
We have polluted air, water and soil because the state has permitted dumping of pollutants into state water, air and soil. Developing new and higher standards may look like the DEQ is doing something on paper, but there will be no improvement seen from these changes for decades, if at all. These proposed revisions may be better than nothing, but they were obviously developed to comply with federal guidelines for fish consumption without really addressing the underlying problem. It is the state itself that allows the creation of zones of pollution through its permitting and laws. Human food sources and health should, and do, have a higher priority than profits gained from inadequate water treatment.What I like about the proposed revisions, is that the state would be testing for pollutants that are not currently tested for. Realistically, with nano silver now being found coming out of wastewater treatment plants and genetic engineering, testing should be going even further to protect public and environmental health.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melinda McComb
PO Box 1954
Newport, OR 97365